ue5_tool_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the whitelist scope (101 commands) and the return shape, which implies a read-only lookup, but it never states that the call has no side effects, nor does it mention the result cap (default 8, cap 20) that materially affects how an agent should query. Adequate but leaves behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and the routing instruction to execute_command are front-loaded in the first clause. It loses a point because the full text is duplicated bilingually, roughly doubling length without adding information an English-reading agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating exactly what is returned (names, params, one-line descriptions). For a low-risk lookup with fully documented params this is nearly complete; only the omission of side-effect behavior and result-limit implications keeps it from a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (query, limit, include_tools) are already documented with examples and defaults. The description only reinforces that the input is a keyword; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (101 whitelisted commands and MCP tools), and specifies the return payload: command names, params, one-line descriptions. It also names the sibling it pairs with (execute_command), so an agent can tell it apart from node/asset/PIE tools without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use this before execute_command to discover capabilities without a dedicated tool', giving both the trigger condition (no dedicated tool exists) and the alternative it precedes. Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.